| TRACKSIDE (c)
July 13, 2001 By John D'Aloia, Jr. A favorite rationale given by politicians as they use eminent domain to grab your land is "economic development." The term is evoked and used to stop all debate, to stop consideration of the issues, to stop critical inquiry into the legality and equity of the land grab. "Economic development" is used much as politicians use the "for the children" mantra. Last week's TRACKSIDE ended with a Kansas City politician "feeling" the pain of the 160 people whose land was stolen through the eminent domain process, all neat and legal-like, to make way for and subsidize a for-profit corporation. This particular Guardian was quoted as saying "We know we're going to hurt you, but it's for the good of all." Whoa! Since when are we a faceless, soulless economic and social blob that has to be managed by the elite for some ethereal "common good." She and all of The Guardians blatantly ignore the historically documented fact that the Constitution's "the common good" has nothing to do with making such decisions and managing people's lives. They ignore that it has everything to do with a government limited in scope and power to its delegated authority to provide a level playing field for all citizens acting individually and peaceably in concert with their neighbor. "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." So said Thomas Jefferson. He should know. The grabbing of private land for corporate welfare in Kansas City is not an isolated occurrence. It happens with great regularity nationwide. The belief that government is all powerful starts in Congress, where the majority, based on the evidence of their votes, believes that they have been elected to take on the mantle of The Guardians. Only a Guardian would believe that the federal government has a constitutional duty to tell you how to cook eggs, that you must wear a seatbelt, or regulate the size of your toilet tank. An example of their mindset came out during a committee hearing on CARA, the bill that will give the federal government billions of off-budget dollars to go around the country buying up land from "willing sellers." (If you believe the willing seller ploy, beware, there are con men out there who are ready to sell you Arizona ocean frontage.) When a proponent of private property rights made the point that the federal government has no business -- and no constitutional authority -- to buy up the country, Representative Billy Tauzin (R, LA) said: "Current law allows agencies to take land when they want it." It does not get much plainer than this. For all intents and purposes, the concept of private property ownership is but a historical figment, obliterated by those who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. When an agency covets your land, they have the backing of the Guardians in Congress. (Another Guardian tactic was demonstrated by the hearings -- stack the deck -- allow many to testify who believe in what The Guardians are trying to impose, allow only token testimony in opposition. Besides hobbling the opponents, you give the sycophantic media the ability to say, with a straight face, that most people testifying were in favor of the measure.) Surprisingly, The Guardians do not yet win them all. In a Lancaster, California case reported in several national newspapers, a federal judge permanently blocked the city from taking the property of one business and giving it to an adjacent business so that it could expand. (Would it surprise you that the receiving business had the bigger financial clout by at least an order of magnitude?) The judge said that the city's action was in violation of the 5th Amendment. The city's theory? If they didn't force the transfer of ownership, the second business would move elsewhere, taking jobs and leaving an empty building. In his ruling, the judge held that the city's attempt to steal the land was "nothing more than the desire to achieve the naked transfer of property from one private party to another." The judge rejected the notion that such a transfer was a public purpose, heretofore the usual standard that had to be met before the eminent domain power could be invoked. The city fathers apparently have lost their bearings, not understanding the place of private property in our constitutional republic. In another proposal, they offered to give the company five acres of the city's prime park, in the process eradicating 100 trees. A citizen's group is fighting this use of their tax dollars for a corporate subsidy. To be continued. See you Trackside. ===== TRACKSIDE (c) By John D'Aloia, Jr. In Lancaster, California, a judge stopped the city from using its power of eminent domain to steal land from one company to give to another in the name of economic development. The judge ruled that the city's attempt to steal the land was "nothing more than the desire to achieve the naked transfer of property from one private party to another." The gross misuse of eminent domain powers to favor one business over another, or to provide land for a business at the expense of individual home owners is happening across the country. In Chicago, Mayor Daley has a grandiose plan to expand O'Hare Airport. (O'Hare is one of the airports that make people wonder if maybe they should have stayed home or taken the train.) The proposal requires the forced sale of more than 500 homes in the Des Plaines and Bensenville areas. Even Bambi will suffer -- a small forested area at the edge of Bensenville, home to deer, will be obliterated. Citizens are rallying to fight the proposal. One Bensenville resident was quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times: "We are almost 70 years old and on a fixed income. Where are we supposed to go? How come nobody thinks about us?" Another resident said that his home has been in the family for three generations. "That's what gets me. He [Daley] does not care about who owns these homes or the history. He just cares about expanding O'Hare." In New London, Connecticut, Pfizer Corporation, long located in Groton, across the Thames River from New London, is spending $270 million to build a new corporate headquarters. To complement the Pfizer project, a private redevelopment company is putting together a $200 million project in the area under the auspices of the city. Plans include the construction of a health club, a hotel, high-income housing, offices and other unspecified businesses. The city not only turned the development project over to the private company, it gave the company the right to use the city's power of eminent domain to seize property for the project. Pfizer has its hand and financial clout in the project, having underwritten a $2 million line-of-credit for the project. Twenty-one eminent domain actions were started against private landowners. The homeowners, with the help of the Institute for Justice, are attempting to fight back, basing their law suit on the fact that the land was taken not for a public purpose, but to "enhance" the Pfizer facility. Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute, was quoted in USA Today as saying: "And the kind of pure, naked transfers of land from one owner to another person who you think is going to make a better profit off it is unconstitutional." Not only unconstitutional, but pure socialism. When the state has the power to do whatever it wants, there is no right to private property. In a 1993 ruling, the Supreme Court wrote: "Individual freedom finds tangible expression in property rights." It is another way of saying no property rights, no freedom. Nissan is building a new auto plant in Mississippi. The state gave Nissan almost $300 million in subsidies and tax breaks, and threw in about 1,300 acres of state land. This though, was not enough. The state used its eminent domain powers to go after three rural homeowners who owned a sum total of 27 acres, land that had been in the families for generations. In this case, the Institute for Justice has teamed with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in an attempt to stop the state despots from taking these peoples' land and handing it to Nissan. Last year, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the city embarked on a plan to demolish a fifth of downtown to make way for an urban shopping mall. In the process, the city was ready to use eminent domain to kick out over 120 small businesses and give the land to the developer. The public, when it learned of the outrageous land grab, generated sufficient political heat to defeat the project. The politicians in Norwood, Ohio, want to condemn several small businesses so that a nearby Walgreens can move its store location one block. In Richfield, Minnesota, a car dealership is fighting an effort by the city to take its land to give to Best Buy for a new headquarters. The citizens of an entire neighborhood in New Rochelle, New York, are trying to prevent the city from taking their homes so that an IKEA department store can be built. But, you say, the people are ultimately getting compensation for their property when the state exercises its power of eminent domain. This we will discuss next week. To be continued. See you Trackside. ===== TRACKSIDE (c) By John D'Aloia, Jr. Is justice done when a person receives cash for property taken by a government using its power of eminent domain? Those that are doing the grabbing will probably say yes, the 5th Amendment has been satisfied and all's well that ends well. Not quite. The context of the 5th Amendment is a constitutionally restrained government with limited authority to own land and with the courts and legislatures abiding by a strict, narrow definition of "public purpose." Eminent domain should be rarely used. When eminent domain is used for "economic development," justice and equity are mysteriously absent. The common result of these eminent domain actions is that land owners have to fight for every penny they get, that they never get fully compensated for being driven off their land, and hard cash can never repair lives torn asunder by the government's actions. (Ask those whose land was seized for the benefit of the developers of the NASCAR track in Wyandotte County.) Even if you neglect these aspects of the process, there is an underlying moral issue that damns what is being done. In many cases, the compensation people ultimately receive is coming from their own taxes, and the taxes of their fellow citizens. In effect, they, and all citizens, are paying increased taxes to give politicians the funds to steal land. They are forcibly being required to provide the funds that the politicians use, after retaining healthy administrative surcharges, for the benefit of favored benefactors and supporters. In other cases, the compensation comes not from government, but from the developer who will benefit from obtaining the land. In these cases, the state becomes a pistol-packing land agent for the company, no better than the hired-guns in a Grade B western out trying to drive off the poor sodbuster from land coveted by a black-hatted cattle baron. Where is the Lone Ranger when you need him? Either way, a government using eminent domain for a private purpose is not acting as a servant, but as a tyrannical dictator. The message is that there are no bounds on its actions. Today your land, tomorrow your ____; you fill in the blank. Whenever government gets involved in trying to promote economic development by taking action to assist one company, it is interfering in the market place and biasing the outcome. Those who promote such actions believe that they have the wisdom to make the right decision. (Besides, if it does not work out, they are immune from the discipline of the market place or any personal consequences. Taxpayers can always be hit up for more money with which to play.) Economic development actions are taken at the expense of many, and results are often ethereal at best, no more lasting than the PowerPoint image flashed across the screen lauding what is proposed to be done. Thirty Kansas economists, representing universities across the state, joined by more than 100 other Midwestern economists, endorsed a resolution calling upon governments to terminate targeted business assistance, including direct grants, selective tax incentives, and tax abatements. (They could have added the indiscriminate use of eminent domain.) The resolution, published by the Kansas Public Policy Institute, is addressed to state governments, calling upon them to stop the interstate competition for businesses. It is equally applicable to intrastate competition between cities. The economists cited six reasons why targeted business incentive programs fail to promote economic growth. They penalize existing businesses and labor through higher taxes to subsidize relocating firms. They target relocating firms that add little to net job creation. They serve only a small portion of the firms that need tax and regulatory relief. They are minor factors in the plant location decisions of most firms. They give unfair advantages to large firms with the ability to negotiate the "best" deal. They represent industrial policies that attempt to pick winners and losers through the political process rather than the economic process. The economists did not stop with listing the ills of economic development programs. They also provided the framework for a comprehensive economic development strategy: widespread tax relief for all businesses and citizens, a "fair field with no favors" approach, budgetary restraint, high-quality physical infrastructure, access to transportation, a superior education system, and market-based competition and deregulation. A myriad of political ills disappear over night and freedom is restored when a government is limited in what it can do. A good starting point is readoption of a strict definition of public purpose in the eminent domain process. See you Trackside.
|